OK, then by that standard, which of the ten most conservative members have been identified by the New York Times as a moderate?
Regards,
Shodan
It wouldn’t make much sense in an article entitled "To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left " now would it?
The article’s thesis is that the court has consistently moved to the Right.
To answer the question though: Kennedy (#10 most conservative in the court’s history).
In fact they have previously characterized him as being the center of the court and hard to categorize.
It wouldn’t make sense in this article though. The article’s premise is, as said by Justice Stevens that, with the possible exception of Bader-Ginsberg
And if Bader-Ginsberg does leave the court soon, then that trend is going to be difficult to break. Even under Obama it seems likely that the court will move overall to the Right.
Get the eight-member court to approve human cloning, create another Souter.
who said it has to be a judge? the pres. could be thinking way out of the box.
before the senate kerfluffle, i would have bet on caroline kennedy being on the list. she knows the constitution very well, and has pretty much stayed out of trouble. now i’m sure she has moved down if not off the list.
he could have someone who teaches constitution law, or is a constitutional scholar on his short list. that could give you a pacific sized pool to choose from.
“Knows the constitution very well?” She wrote two books about the constitution. That’s about all. Compare her qualifications to those of the one potential nominee I’ve heard of - Cass Sunstein - and you’ll see she’s really got nothing for that job. Or compare Kennedy, who’s headed some charitable foundations, served on some boards, done some charitable work, to Ginsburg. Ginsburg taught law at Columbia, lead the ACLU women’s rights project and argued cases before the Supreme Court, and was a federal judge for 13 years.
That’d be Cass Sunstein. 
Usually judges are considered for the position of supreme judgeship.
If Kennedy was ever on the list, which I seriously doubt, it was a mistake, and she has subsequently been removed. How on earth is Caroline Kennedy qualified to be on the Supreme Court? She’s never held a single post in the court system!
I don’t think there’s any real chance that Obama will nominate a man to repleace Ginsburg. Why does it have to be a federal judge? Why not a member of a state supreme court? Why does it have to be a judge (hell technically it doesn’t even have to be a lawyer) at all?
I’d say Leah Ward Sears would be a fine choice. (Her name has been mentioned.) She has been a strong liberal voice on the Georgia Supreme Court. (See her concurrence in Powell v. State, wherein the Georgia Supreme Court was out in front of the US Supreme Court in striking down a sodomy statute on the ground that it violated the right to privacy.)
It’s a court tasked with determining what the constitution says about different situations.
True, but plenty of non-judges have made fine Supreme Court Justices over the years.
I don’t think he’d pick him, but Sunstein would be an interesting choice.
I was responding more to the idea it doesn’t have to be a judge or lawyer, but out of curiosity, who did you have in mind? I would’ve said Marshall, but he was actually a judge for a few years.
The most recent non-judge justice would be William Rehnquist, but of the justices appointed in the 20th century, Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas, Byron White, William Douglas, Hugo Black, Tom Black, Arthur Goldberg, Earl Warren, Harold Burton, Felix Frankfurther, Stanley Reed, Robert Jackson, James Byrnes, Owen Roberts, Harlan Stone, James McRenolds, Pierce Butler, Louis Brandeis, George Sutherland, Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph McKenna, and William Moody all were non-judges before their appointments.
They weren’t all chuckleheads…just some of them.
It seems to me that, while a non-judge could get in, it’d cost a lot more political capital to do it. Such a person would not only have to be the best for the job, but by a large margin, to justify the expenditure of that capital.
The Supreme Court gets its authority and power from the perception that it is fair. If people don’t trust the court to be fair it will lose credibility and power.
That is not a good position to be in. We need people to respect judicial decisions to avoid violence over disputes.
Not appointing a woman would hurt the court’s credibility tremendously. An all male court deciding issues of women rights is just a bad idea. Especially since there should be plenty of women who are qualified for the job.
Not neccesarily. I agree that if Ginsberg leaves, her replacement will probably not move the court to the left. But if it were Alita, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, or even Kennedy who was leaving, then I would expect Obama’s nominee to be to the left of the man he replaced. With the exception of Kennedy, there’s not much room to move any further to the right.
A question for the conservatives on the board: Of the possible nominees who have been mentioned here, what are your opinions of them? The names mentioned are Caroline Kennedy, Margaret McKeown, Richard Paez, Leah Ward Sears, Cass Sunstein, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Diane Wood.
No, no more than immigrants from Spain to the U.S. are Hispanic; the word is reserved for people who came to the U.S. from/by way of Latin America.
But that’s the point. Seems likely it’s Bader-Ginsberg, so the court will lose its only solidly liberal voice likely to be replaced yet again by someone more conservative than the person leaving. It is not Thomas or Scalia or … etc. leaving.
Well, is it, though? According to the census bureau definition, for instance:
“a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.”
The EEO definition uses:
"A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin. Does not include persons of Portuguese culture or origin " (which wouldn’t apply to Cardozo, being of Portugese descent, but…)